Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree2Thanks
  • 1 Post By johnsomeone
  • 1 Post By Deveno

Math Help - UFDs, primes and irreducibles - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Proposition 11, page 2

  1. #1
    Super Member Bernhard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    From
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    558
    Thanks
    2

    UFDs, primes and irreducibles - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Proposition 11, page 2

    I am reading Dummit and Foote Ch 8, Section 8.3 Unique Factorization Domains (UFDs)

    I am studying Proposition 11 on page 284 (see attachment) which reads:

    "In a Principal Ideal Domain, a non-zero element is a prime if and only if it is irreducible"

    I follow the proof (see attachment) down to the statement:

    But p is irreducible so by definition either r or m is a unit (OK so far!)

    [ so we have if r is a unit then there exists an element u of the PID such that ru = ur = 1 and if m is a unit then there exist a PID element v such that mv = vm = 1]


    But then D&F state the folowing:

    "This means that either (p) = (m) or (m) = (1) respectively."

    Can anyone show me formally how this follows from the statement that either r or m is a unit?

    WOuld appreciate the help!

    Peter
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Super Member
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    From
    Washington DC USA
    Posts
    525
    Thanks
    146

    Re: UFDs, primes and irreducibles - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Proposition 11, pa

    They're implicitly using that (x) = (ux) for all units u in R.
    Have (p) contained in an ideal I implies (via PID) that I = (m) for some m.
    Now p in (m), so there exists r such that p = rm.
    By p irreducible, p = rm implies that either r or m is a unit.
    If r is a unit, then from p = rm, have (p) = (rm) = (m) = I. Thus (p) = I.
    If m is a unit, then I = (m) = (m*m) = (1) = R. Thus I = R. (Where m* is the multiplicative inverse of m, which is itself a unit.)
    Thus (p) is a maximal ideal, because the only ideals containing (p) are (p) itself and R.
    Maximal ideals are prime, thus (p) is a prime ideal.
    Thus p is a prime element.
    Last edited by johnsomeone; October 26th 2012 at 12:56 PM.
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Super Member Bernhard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    From
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    558
    Thanks
    2

    Re: UFDs, primes and irreducibles - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Proposition 11, pa

    Thanks for the help

    Can you demonstrate that (x) = (ux) for all units u in R

    Will work on this myself as well
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,392
    Thanks
    759

    Re: UFDs, primes and irreducibles - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Proposition 11, pa

    it suffices to show that x is in (ux), and ux is in (x).

    that ux is in (x) is trivial.

    this means that (ux) is contained in (x).

    on the other hand, x = 1x = (u-1u)x = u-1(ux), which is clearly in (ux).

    thus (x) is contained in (ux), as well, and the two sets are equal.

    in a PID, ideal containment is equivalent to the notion of divisibility:

    (y) is contained in (x) iff x divides y.

    for example, in the integers, (6) is contained in (2), because 2 divides 6.

    in other words: in order to get the equivalent concept of "prime numbers" in a PID, what we want to do is work with "prime ideals".

    this lets us generalize the following result:

    Zn is an integral domain iff n is a prime number, to:

    R/P is an integral domain iff P is a prime ideal.

    this is a handy way to get rid of unwanted zero-divisors and make a "nicer" ring from an "ugly" one.

    in PID's, non-zero prime ideals are also maximal, so for a PID D, and a prime ideal P, D/P is actually a field (the very nicest kind of ring).

    a special case of PID's is where R = F[x], the ring of polynomials over a field F. the "prime elements" in such a ring are the irreducible polynomials.

    this gives a very nice way of constructing the complex numbers:

    C = R[x]/(x2+1), the coset x + (x2+1) plays the role of the complex number i (all higher degree polynomials are absorbed into the ideal, except for a linear factor remainder). this is really just a fancy way of saying:

    C = R[√(-1)] = R(i).

    one advantage to this (as opposed to say defining C as a 2-dimensional vector space over R with a multiplication), is that we immediately get all the field axioms "for free", from properties of RINGS.
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Super Member Bernhard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    From
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    558
    Thanks
    2

    Re: UFDs, primes and irreducibles - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Proposition 11, pa

    Thanks Deveno ... Your detailed post is very helpful ... And much appreciated

    Peter
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 27th 2012, 07:27 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 13th 2012, 12:39 PM
  3. Rings and Subrings - Dummit and Foote Chapter 7
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 31st 2012, 03:18 PM
  4. Orbits - Dummit and Foote and Fraleigh
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 24th 2011, 01:20 PM
  5. General Linear Group - Problem from Dummit and Foote
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 11th 2011, 09:07 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum